The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11..19..27..35..43~44~45~46 [Next]
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5718 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Guns don't kill people...

Oscar Pistorius does.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
By "sport," do you mean "hunting?" Because a gun used for hunting is used for killing.

In defending your personal safety, you have to be aware that at some point or another you will kill someone. Obviously, this would be in self defense, but it would still result in killing.

Now, in this thread, people have been ridiculed for suggesting that guns be banned for one person's death.

My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking.


Hunting could be defined as a sport. But when I refer to sport I am referring to target shooting, competing against others.

If in your question 100 people were attacked and the victims had no weapon and as a result the 100 innocent people (those attacked) were killed as opposed to 100 attacks and 2, 5 10 or 20 were killed and the rest survived I do not believe there is much of a debate as to which is the better scenario.


You said "sport AND target shooting" so you're counting target shooting twice?

That wasn't MY "scenario," don't twist my words.

Let's consider people with legally owned handguns or rifles.
A "good shooting" is one in which the person with the legally owned handgun or rifle kills a person who is actually threatening them or their loved ones.

A "bad shooting" is one in which the person with the legally owned handgun or rifle kills someone who is NOT threatening them or their loved ones. (The person with the legally owned handgun or rifle may have thought at the time that he was defending him/herself but it turns out to be an error, or simply a mistake, or an active act of anger or aggression.)

Examples, in my mind would be;

The man in a neighborhood where there have been break ins. Someone pounds on his door, he defends himself by opening the door and firing his shotgun, and a poor drunken frightened woman who was looking for help is dead on his front walk.

The police, gunning down a suspect because he pulled out his wallet.

The police, gunning down a suspect and then claiming one of their members "tripped" and they "thought" he'd been shot.

A punk kid, scaring people in Japan by jumping out at them and taking pictures of their terrified faces finds out that in America, that gets you shot and killed.


So, my question is; 100 good shoots vs. how many bad shoots before we question the validity of people who "think" they're properly trained owning dangerous weapons?
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20869 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
How many guilty people go free and kill someone before we question the validity of the fourth amendment?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Same formula... 100 guilty people executed/x people exonerated after the execution... solve for x

I've actually had someone tell me it was OK if a number of innocent people died through capital punishment as long as the guilty died too!
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 16, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
By "sport," do you mean "hunting?" Because a gun used for hunting is used for killing.

In defending your personal safety, you have to be aware that at some point or another you will kill someone. Obviously, this would be in self defense, but it would still result in killing.

Now, in this thread, people have been ridiculed for suggesting that guns be banned for one person's death.

My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking.


Hunting could be defined as a sport. But when I refer to sport I am referring to target shooting, competing against others.

If in your question 100 people were attacked and the victims had no weapon and as a result the 100 innocent people (those attacked) were killed as opposed to 100 attacks and 2, 5 10 or 20 were killed and the rest survived I do not believe there is much of a debate as to which is the better scenario.


You said "sport AND target shooting" so you're counting target shooting twice?

That wasn't MY "scenario," don't twist my words.

Let's consider people with legally owned handguns or rifles.
A "good shooting" is one in which the person with the legally owned handgun or rifle kills a person who is actually threatening them or their loved ones.

A "bad shooting" is one in which the person with the legally owned handgun or rifle kills someone who is NOT threatening them or their loved ones. (The person with the legally owned handgun or rifle may have thought at the time that he was defending him/herself but it turns out to be an error, or simply a mistake, or an active act of anger or aggression.)

Examples, in my mind would be;

The man in a neighborhood where there have been break ins. Someone pounds on his door, he defends himself by opening the door and firing his shotgun, and a poor drunken frightened woman who was looking for help is dead on his front walk.

The police, gunning down a suspect because he pulled out his wallet.

The police, gunning down a suspect and then claiming one of their members "tripped" and they "thought" he'd been shot.

A punk kid, scaring people in Japan by jumping out at them and taking pictures of their terrified faces finds out that in America, that gets you shot and killed.


So, my question is; 100 good shoots vs. how many bad shoots before we question the validity of people who "think" they're properly trained owning dangerous weapons?



Are you asking me about accidental shootings? You say I am twisting your words. Ha, ha. No need to as I cannot understand what you were saying in your question. Here it is in " ":

"My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking."

--------------------------------------------------------------

You state 100 legitimate verifiable cases of self defense, death resulting. What the heck are you talking about?

My answer will not change. If instead of 100 innocent people dying as opposed to a much smaller amount of innocent people dying. Would you rather 100 people die or 2, or 3?

Let me ask you this. We know what Happened at Sandy Hook. Suppose a guard, teacher had a weapon and stopped the madman. Also in your scenario I believe this is what you are asking. Let us say that the gunman killed two people and a teacher or guard stopped the gunman but in so doing killed one other child. Which would be a better outcome for you? All of those children dead or one killed by the person saving all of the others? But you know the answer don't you? Very tough question isn't it? Of course now the press and all of you anti gun people would be all over the person who killed the one innocent child and saved all of the others. Again which is the better of a horrible scenario? Of course we all know what the best outcome would be. A 5' 100 lb. female teacher tackles and wrestles the gunfromothe madman and holds him there until the police arrive. But that is not the real world is it?

Ever hear the term "friendly fire"? Well I have seen the results. And you know what? I still believe we should have guns when fighting those with deadly weapons with the intent of killing us. If you have another solution I would like to hear it. Don't ask such questions for the sake of baiting.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 16, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Same formula... 100 guilty people executed/x people exonerated after the execution... solve for x

I've actually had someone tell me it was OK if a number of innocent people died through capital punishment as long as the guilty died too!



I've actually had someone tell me it was OK if a number of innocent people were incarcerated as long as the guilty were incarcerated too. Smile
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20869 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I am personally shocked at those ao willing to have their right re examined in the name of alleged safety.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:
? what is your point? I think the govt has the right to control derringers, nuclear bombs, crossbows.


Why is that? Are they also killing machines? What about the sharp sticks and clubs? Oops forgot butter knives.

I do agree on the nuclear bombs.

To review where my comments are coming from:

The point Lobo and I are debating is whether the "main purpose of the instrument in question is killing" is an adequate reason to allow govt control. I say yes; he, if I'm characterizing his position accurately, is of the opinion that the main purpose is irrelevant, only the actual numbers of deaths produced is relevant. Thus he thinks it is inconsistent to want to control guns, but not swimming pools.


Apparently, we lost the post of yours where you said that you think the government has the right to control nuclear bombs, Uzis, and Derringers. At any rate, it was a useful post, because it clarifies that there are multiple possible discussions that can lapse into each other and result in people arguing different things. Specifically, in this case, we might be talking about:

1) Whether the government can control (i.e. regulate) weapon X;
2) Whether the government can ban weapon X; and
3) Whether the government should ban weapon X.

When you arrived in the sub thread between NYC and me, I thought it was pretty clear that he and I were talking about the banning of Uzis; however, in engaging you in the discussion seems to have slid into the question of whether they can regulate them, unless by control, you meant ban. So, to clarify:

1) I think the government can and should ban nuclear bombs;
2) I think the government cannot, per the Second Amendment, ban handguns, and moreover should not; however, they can and should regulate them.
I'm pretty locked into those positions, but less certain about Uzis.

So, moving on to the post of yours that I actually excerpted, it's not really an accurate characterization of my opinion. I don't suggest that the number if deaths is the only that is relevant; I argue, instead, that it is relevant. It was NYC's position (and you lumped yourself in with him) that the number of deaths is irrelevant, provided that the number is more than zero.

Per NYC's stated argument (as much as we've seen, anyway), all guns should be banned, because 1) their purpose is to kill, and 2) they result in a nonzero number of deaths. I never intended to suggest that the number of deaths is the only relevant factor in the calculus; rather, that his stated criteria were, in and of themselves insufficient to conclude that a particular weapon should be banned. One must either go beyond his stated rationale or take the position that all guns should be banned. I'm sure that many are willing to take that position, and perhaps you're among them, but most - even most of those who favor fairly stringent gun control - are not.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16356 Posts

Profile of tommy
I think governments can do whatever they like in reality, which is why you need guns just in case. In a case is probably the best place to keep them.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Thirty pages later and the only thing we can all probably agree on is that private citizens should not have the right to own and set off nuclear bombs. We are making progress. Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Sep 16, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 16, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
By "sport," do you mean "hunting?" Because a gun used for hunting is used for killing.

In defending your personal safety, you have to be aware that at some point or another you will kill someone. Obviously, this would be in self defense, but it would still result in killing.

Now, in this thread, people have been ridiculed for suggesting that guns be banned for one person's death.

My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking.


Hunting could be defined as a sport. But when I refer to sport I am referring to target shooting, competing against others.

If in your question 100 people were attacked and the victims had no weapon and as a result the 100 innocent people (those attacked) were killed as opposed to 100 attacks and 2, 5 10 or 20 were killed and the rest survived I do not believe there is much of a debate as to which is the better scenario.


You said "sport AND target shooting" so you're counting target shooting twice?

That wasn't MY "scenario," don't twist my words.

Let's consider people with legally owned handguns or rifles.
A "good shooting" is one in which the person with the legally owned handgun or rifle kills a person who is actually threatening them or their loved ones.

A "bad shooting" is one in which the person with the legally owned handgun or rifle kills someone who is NOT threatening them or their loved ones. (The person with the legally owned handgun or rifle may have thought at the time that he was defending him/herself but it turns out to be an error, or simply a mistake, or an active act of anger or aggression.)

Examples, in my mind would be;

The man in a neighborhood where there have been break ins. Someone pounds on his door, he defends himself by opening the door and firing his shotgun, and a poor drunken frightened woman who was looking for help is dead on his front walk.

The police, gunning down a suspect because he pulled out his wallet.

The police, gunning down a suspect and then claiming one of their members "tripped" and they "thought" he'd been shot.

A punk kid, scaring people in Japan by jumping out at them and taking pictures of their terrified faces finds out that in America, that gets you shot and killed.


So, my question is; 100 good shoots vs. how many bad shoots before we question the validity of people who "think" they're properly trained owning dangerous weapons?



Are you asking me about accidental shootings? You say I am twisting your words. Ha, ha. No need to as I cannot understand what you were saying in your question. Here it is in " ":

"My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking."

--------------------------------------------------------------

You state 100 legitimate verifiable cases of self defense, death resulting. What the heck are you talking about?

My answer will not change. If instead of 100 innocent people dying as opposed to a much smaller amount of innocent people dying. Would you rather 100 people die or 2, or 3?

Let me ask you this. We know what Happened at Sandy Hook. Suppose a guard, teacher had a weapon and stopped the madman. Also in your scenario I believe this is what you are asking. Let us say that the gunman killed two people and a teacher or guard stopped the gunman but in so doing killed one other child. Which would be a better outcome for you? All of those children dead or one killed by the person saving all of the others? But you know the answer don't you? Very tough question isn't it? Of course now the press and all of you anti gun people would be all over the person who killed the one innocent child and saved all of the others. Again which is the better of a horrible scenario? Of course we all know what the best outcome would be. A 5' 100 lb. female teacher tackles and wrestles the gunfromothe madman and holds him there until the police arrive. But that is not the real world is it?

Ever hear the term "friendly fire"? Well I have seen the results. And you know what? I still believe we should have guns when fighting those with deadly weapons with the intent of killing us. If you have another solution I would like to hear it. Don't ask such questions for the sake of baiting.


I don't see why you're having a problem with my question.

100 + X shooting incidents involving people who legally own handguns or rifles. 100 of those shootings are clearly good shoots, the person doing the shooting was in fact in danger of his or his family's life. X number of shootings are NOT "good" shoots, the shooter was not protecting his life or property (even if he THOUGHT he was) and someone died who shouldn't have.

My question is, how large does "X" have to be before you consider that not everybody is qualified to own a gun and use it responsibly?
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Sep 16, 2014, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 16, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Same formula... 100 guilty people executed/x people exonerated after the execution... solve for x

I've actually had someone tell me it was OK if a number of innocent people died through capital punishment as long as the guilty died too!



I've actually had someone tell me it was OK if a number of innocent people were incarcerated as long as the guilty were incarcerated too. Smile


The innocent who have been incarcerated can be released. The executed don't have that option.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
I guess you're saying that you don't have a problem with innocent people being incarcerated?

So, tell me, how many innocent people being incarcerated is OK for every 100 guilty?
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Sep 16, 2014, rockwall wrote:
I guess you're saying that you don't have a problem with innocent people being incarcerated?

So, tell me, how many innocent people being incarcerated is OK for every 100 guilty?


I didn't say I don't have a problem with it. I said the innocent can be released.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
But you didn't answer my question. I would think someone demanding others answer a question would be willing to answer similar one.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Your question was in two parts; "You don't have a problem with the innocent being incarcerated" and "How many innocent being incarcerated with 100 guilty is OK?"

Since I DO have a problem with innocent being incarcerated, 0/100 would be OK with me.

I am aware however that we are fallible and there will be people in prison who shouldn't be.

Hopefully, there will be others who are willing to fight to get those people out.

And hopefully those people will get out. They do have that option. Those people who were executed don't.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Rhodes said:

I don't see why you're having a problem with my question.

100 + X shooting incidents involving people who legally own handguns or rifles. 100 of those shootings are clearly good shoots, the person doing the shooting was in fact in danger of his or his family's life. X number of shootings are NOT "good" shoots, the shooter was not protecting his life or property (even if he THOUGHT he was) and someone died who shouldn't have.

My question is, how large does "X" have to be before you consider that not everybody is qualified to own a gun and use it responsibly?

-------------------------------------------------

The fly in the ointment here is in your statement that reads "(even if he THOUGHT he was)". If in truth that is the case it is a good shooting. Thought in this case is used as a synonym for believe.

Secondly I never said EVERYBODY is qualified to own a handgun. Qualified and "has a right to" are two completely different issues. Also not everyone has a right to won a handgun such as convicted felons etc. The issue here is here who decided who is qualified and what are the qualifications? Also we have to define the words everybody and anybody. You use the term "everybody is qualified" and as I said before I never said that. Also as far as I know there are no qualifications in order to own a hand gun but there are regulations.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
By "sport," do you mean "hunting?" Because a gun used for hunting is used for killing.

In defending your personal safety, you have to be aware that at some point or another you will kill someone. Obviously, this would be in self defense, but it would still result in killing.

Now, in this thread, people have been ridiculed for suggesting that guns be banned for one person's death.

My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking.


I don't think many people are in favor of anyone owning a gun.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, acesover wrote:
Rhodes said:

I don't see why you're having a problem with my question.

100 + X shooting incidents involving people who legally own handguns or rifles. 100 of those shootings are clearly good shoots, the person doing the shooting was in fact in danger of his or his family's life. X number of shootings are NOT "good" shoots, the shooter was not protecting his life or property (even if he THOUGHT he was) and someone died who shouldn't have.

My question is, how large does "X" have to be before you consider that not everybody is qualified to own a gun and use it responsibly?

-------------------------------------------------

The fly in the ointment here is in your statement that reads "(even if he THOUGHT he was)". If in truth that is the case it is a good shooting. Thought in this case is used as a synonym for believe.

Secondly I never said EVERYBODY is qualified to own a handgun. Qualified and "has a right to" are two completely different issues. Also not everyone has a right to won a handgun such as convicted felons etc. The issue here is here who decided who is qualified and what are the qualifications? Also we have to define the words everybody and anybody. You use the term "everybody is qualified" and as I said before I never said that. Also as far as I know there are no qualifications in order to own a hand gun but there are regulations.


No. I don't agree. If you were wrong in your reasoning as to the need to use a gun, then the shoot is bad.

If you THOUGHT the suspect had a gun, but it turned out to be a wallet or a camera, you still shot an unarmed person.

(And before anyone brings this up, NO I don't think you have to be shot at first in order to shoot someone. But if you're going to take someone's life in your hands, you'd better be pretty d@mn certain of your case!)

In my opinion, someone who isn't qualified to use a gun doesn't have a right to one.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20869 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
What is qualified and who decides?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11..19..27..35..43~44~45~46 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL